Examples of non compliance by HC120321233223

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 17

									ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                            Document Submission
    and
   Topic
   ELE 1
  Annual
Assessment

   ELE 2         While LEP students participate in the taking of MCAS, no MCAS scores were evident during the record review. The documents provided
   MCAS          by the district did not provide evidence that LEP students have access to word-to-word bilingual dictionaries.
Participation
                 While records and interviews indicate that LEP students participate in MCAS, interviews also show that bilingual word-to-word dictionaries
                 are not always available to LEP and former LEP students.
   ELE 3         Department of Education Findings: See MOA 1. Additionally, student records did not consistently contain evidence of identification
    Initial      assessments or home language surveys, and, when they did contain home language surveys, they were often completed some time after
Identification   enrollment or were not in the primary language of the home.

                 Staff interviews and student records indicate that there are students whose limited English proficiency affects their school achievement.

                 The school has procedures to identify LEP students, but they are not effectively identifying students whose English proficiency presents a
                 barrier to achievement. G.L. c. 71A defines an English learner as “a child who does not speak English or whose native language is not
                 English, and who is not currently able to perform ordinary classroom work in English.” The school has not developed necessary program
                 modifications, support services or English-language development to serve such students.

                 Documentation, student records, and interviews with parents and staff indicate that district identification procedures do not ensure that all
                 LEP students are identified. Parents and staff reported that home language surveys are given in English to parents whose children are
                 already identified as LEP. Students are identified for an English language proficiency assessment only if the lack of English proficiency is
                 obvious, and in some cases, records show students being identified long after enrollment in the district. Further, interviews indicate that
                 school secretaries or guidance counselors decide if a child should be referred for language assessment, thereby not assessing all
                 students whose home language is other than English.

                 Student records, district documentation and interviews indicate that the district uses a national origin self-identification form for parents to
                 indicate what their home language is. This form does not gather any other information related to fluency in native language or English
                 language, as well as other relevant information. Other identification is reliant on staff observations and referrals and students are not
                 always identified at time of enrollment and are later referred by teachers and counselors

   ELE 4         Department of Education Findings: Parent notification letters are sent home upon identification of the student as LEP. The district’s
  Waiver         notices, however, do not contain all of the required elements, specifically, the reasons for identification, the child’s level of English
Procedures       proficiency, the program placement and/or method of instruction, and the parents right to apply for a waiver or to decline services (the
                 district’s letter states “should you decline these services you must sign the enclosed waiver…”) Parents are notified of the district’s
                 determination that a child should continue in the ELE program at a parent-teacher conference. No letter is sent. Interviews indicate that
                 the district appears to believe that a waiver is used to decline services. Parents are erroneously told of this “right.” See ELE 10.
                 The parent notification letter, when sent, is being sent out with a waiver application. However, neither the district nor either charter school
                 sends out an explanation of the waiver process with parent notification letters.

                 Documentation shows that the district has knowledge of the required waiver procedures and have translated the waiver forms into
                 Portuguese and Haitian-Creole.
                 However, there is a lack of consistent understanding of the required procedures in order to implement the waiver option system-wide. The
                 district tends to implement the procedures regarding a parent’s right to opt out, rather than the above waiver procedures
ELE Criterion                      Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                          Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                Department of Education Findings:
                Review of documentation indicated that the districts have procedures for waivers and waiver forms; however, staff must be trained on this
                requirement.
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
   Number                                                          Document Submission
      and
     Topic
     ELE 5      See MOA 2. The district has ELE programs at four of its five elementary schools. Students are placed in mainstream classrooms and are
   Program      pulled out for instruction by the elementary school ESL teacher, who services all four of the schools; interviews indicate some concern
Placement and   about the capacity of one person to service students in this number of schools. While the district states that its model is sheltered English
   Structure    immersion, classroom teachers have not all been trained in sheltered English immersion; some have had minimal training in the area.
                Student records did not consistently contain full student schedules, so placement of students could not be confirmed. Interviews indicate
                that no native language clarification is provided, and that general education teachers are not all familiar with the English Language
                Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes. Previous schooling is considered for class placement. Some student records contained
                referrals for speech and language evaluations; but did not have evidence of further steps (e.g., notice of referral to parent). When brought
                to the attention of the district, the district sent home a request to do a speech and language screening, but not an evaluation, for one of
                these students.

                Not all teachers providing content instruction to limited English proficient (LEP) students have received training in sheltered English
                immersion (SEI).

                At the Hosmer Elementary School, student schedules indicate that students are being pulled out of class and taught content, including
                science and social studies, by staff, including tutors, who do not hold appropriate elementary level certification.

                Based on interviews and documentation, the district currently places LEP students in general education classrooms, with English
                language tutoring. M.G.L. Chapter 71A, §4 requires that all LEP students be educated in sheltered English immersion classrooms and
                provided with English language development instruction. The district practice of placing LEP student in general education classrooms
                does not comply with this standard. Further, the current level of English language development instruction is not adequate to reach the
                goal of rapid acquisition of English for these students.

                Interviews and documentation indicate that the district continues to work on basing instruction on the English Language Proficiency
                Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO); at the time of the review, the curriculum was based partly on the ELPBO and partly on the TESOL
                standards. While some staff indicate that native language tutors are available where needed, other staff indicate that this service was not
                available for students who need it.

                Documentation review and interviews indicate that LEP students are not receiving sheltered English immersion instruction (SEI). The
                district has not provided professional development for teachers on SEI at any level. The district relies heavily on Title 1 reading instructors
                and tutors to provide English language instruction. LEP students receive English language instruction from teachers who are not licensed
                to provide such instruction, and the frequency of instruction falls significantly below Department guidelines and does not ensure that the
                students will be able to gain English proficiency. Refer also to ELE 11 and MOA 2

                At the district and the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School, not all regular classroom teachers of English learner education (ELE)
                students have received training in Sheltered English Instruction, though the district has made some efforts to secure this training. Some
                students do not receive ESL at all, or do not receive ESL instruction by qualified staff.
                Record reviews and interviews indicate that although there is excellent training for mainstream teachers at Conte Elementary and Pittsfield
                High Schools, the English language education (ELE) programs at the other schools, which may have many ELE students, do not meet the
                professional development requirements for sheltered English immersion (SEI) programs. The Department also recommends that
                paraprofessionals and/or other teachers be available for native language clarification when necessary if the child’s teacher does not speak
                the student’s native language.
                Documentation and interviews indicate that the district has made significant progress in implementing an English language education
                (ELE) program in all of its schools that consists of English language development (ELD) and sheltered content instruction. Interviews,
                documentation and classroom observation indicate that during the current school year, because of the lack of trained staff at the middle
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                           Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                school (see also MOA 2), LEP students are not receiving sheltered subject matter instruction. In addition, although the district has trained
                many general education teachers at the elementary level in sheltered English immersion instruction (see ELE 15, below) several students
                are also placed in classrooms with teachers who have not received training.


                Department of Education Findings:
                Review of documentation and interviews indicated that the districts do not have staff trained in sheltered English immersion and second
                language acquisition to effectively serve limited English proficient students. The districts do not have qualified personnel to address the
                programming needs of ELE students entering the districts or who are currently in the districts.

                Program placement varied widely from school to school. At the Woodland Elementary School, LEP students are placed in sheltered
                                     rd    th
                English instruction 3 and 4 grade classrooms with qualified staff members, in which they receive content and English language
                instruction. At Brookside Elementary, Memorial Elementary, Stacy Middle, and Middle School East, LEP students are placed in general
                education classrooms, and provided pull-out English instruction, which does not constitute a full-time program of instruction under the law.
                M.G.L. Chapter 71A specifies that all LEP students be educated in sheltered English instruction classrooms, unless they are in two-way
                programs, have opted out, or are on an approved waiver. At Milford High School, LEP students are placed in a classroom with an
                uncertified teacher.

                Interviews and documentation indicate that the district does not have a Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) program at any level in the
                district and none of the teaching staff has participated in the minimum number of hours of sustained and intense professional development
                required to provide Sheltered English Immersion. (See: http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf) The district does
                have one uncertified ESL instructor who provides minimal English language instruction but the district does not currently have sufficient
                qualified staff or programming in place to provide all LEP students with appropriate levels of English language development services.

                Documentation indicates that LEP students a provided with “modifications as necessary within the classroom” and that “general education
                teachers are asked to reference the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes”. Documentation, student records and
                interviews indicate that all LEP students are not provided with sheltered English instruction (SEI). The district does not provide English
                language development instruction that is based on the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes and does not use
                assessment data to plan and implement educational programs for students at different instructional levels.

                The district has English language support programs in place for students from grades 1-12. However, interviews indicate that the district
                has not developed a program to provide English language support to kindergarten students who are limited English proficient, consistent
                with the requirements of Chapter 71A and Title VI.
                At the high school and at the vocational school, LEP students are not always provided with sheltered English instruction in elective and
                nonacademic classes and in the vocational program.
                (Refer to CTE 14.)

                According to staff interviews and document review, Boston Prep has not hired appropriately qualified, certified staff to provide or develop
                English language development instruction and has not provided training to staff to develop SEI classrooms, even though students have
                been identified by staff as needing ELE services.
                Documentation and student records indicated that the district does provide content instruction based on the Massachusetts Curriculum
                Frameworks. The district does not have a sheltered English immersion program as the teachers have not been trained in sheltering
                content. The district does not have an ESL teacher to provide English language development.
ELE Criterion                      Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                          Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                The district has been participating in the Department’s Emerging Districts Initiative, and has made some progress towards developing an
                ELE Program. However, at this time, interviews indicate that the district does not offer sheltered English instruction to any of its LEP
                students, nor does it offer English language instruction by qualified teachers. The Department noted that while many ELE student
                schedules contain Spanish, none contain ESL.
                According to document review, student records, and interviews, the district currently offers only pull-out ESL tutoring and some in-class
                support for students identified as English Language Learners (ELL).

                The district does not currently have English language support programs in place for ELE students. All students are placed in general
                education classrooms where the curriculum is aligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. The district has secured native
                language tutors to provide some language support to students within the general education classroom. The district needs to develop an
                English Language development curriculum that is based upon the Massachusetts English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and
                Outcomes.
  ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
    Number                                                            Document Submission
      and
     Topic
     ELE 6         Although the district submitted documentation of exit criteria, interviews indicate that district personnel are not aware of defined criteria
Program Exit and   for exiting students from ELE services. Some interviews indicate that students are exited based on test scores such as MEPA, LAS (no
   Readiness       longer used) and MELA-O. Others indicate that students are exited based on feedback from teachers and testing. Students who exit are
                   monitored by the ESL teacher, but are not supported. Interviews indicate that sometimes students are exited and then do not keep up
                   with the work. Some are referred for special education (student record reviews indicated evidence of three students referred for
                   speech/language evaluation by a teacher, but there was no evidence in these records that parents were notified of the requests for
                   evaluation).
                   Documentation and interviews indicate that there is no SEI program in place and as a result no policies or procedures are in place to
                   determine when a student is proficient in English and no longer in need of a language support program.

                   Interviews and a review of student records indicate that the district does not apply its exit criteria
                   consistently across the district. While the district uses multiple sources of data when considering a
                   student for re-designation, the lack of consistency has caused some students to be exited prematurely

                   Documentation shows that there are stated measurable thresholds for determining a student’s’
                    ability to exit an English language support program, and procedures to monitor students re- designated as Formerly Limited English
                   Proficient (FLEP). However, interviews and student records indicate that no formalized procedures are in place to re-designate LEP
                   students to a FLEP status to ensure consistent implementation of the requirements system-wide. In addition, interviews and student
                   records indicate that there are no formal exit criteria in place to assess and move limited English proficient students at appropriate
                   junctures, who are placed in SEI classrooms and have attained the necessary English language proficiency level and skill ability level.

                    Interviews with staff and parents and a review of the district’s documentation indicated that there are no consistent criteria under which an
                   LEP student would exit the English Learner Education program

                    The district must create written policies and procedures regarding support for students who would exit from an English Learner Education
                   (ELE) program.

                   Department of Education Findings:
                   Review of documentation indicated that the districts use the Instructional Support Team process to determine program exit and readiness.
                   While some of the factors that the Instructional Support Team reviews are appropriate, there are no staff on the team who have
                   knowledge and training in English learner education to assist with determining whether a student should be designated as Formerly
                   Limited English Proficient.

     ELE 7         While the districts have indicated that there are no limited English proficient (LEP) students, documentation sets forth that if there were
     Parent
                   parents of LEP students, they would be provided with translators and invited to become members of the parent advisory council and
  Involvement
                   school-based councils.

                   Interviews and record review indicate that interpreters are provided to assist parents with teacher/parent conferences, special education
                   meetings, for guidance programs and for some district events for families. Student records and interviews, however, indicate that
                   documentation, including report cards, is not always translated when necessary, so that parents of limited English proficient (LEP)
                   students can be fully included in matters pertaining to their children’s education. The district has translated the content of report card
                   forms into several languages for parents of middle school and high school students. Some parent surveys indicated that notices are not
                   provided in a language they can understand. Interviews also indicate that the district does make efforts to involve the parents and
                   guardians of LEP students in matters pertaining to their children’s education, but there does not seem to be a formal mechanism for doing
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                           Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                so, such as an ELE parent council, and some of the district’s efforts in this regard have been unsuccessful

                The district does not have a formal process for parent involvement.
                A review of documents and interviews indicate that while individual teachers, especially at the early childhood level, make individual
                parent contacts and attempts to engage and arrange transportation to activities within the school for non-English speaking parents, the
                district has no formal process or mechanism for initiating parent involvement at a district-wide level.
                There is currently no formal mechanism in place to provide outreach to involve parents or guardians of LEP students in matters pertaining
                to their children’s education throughout the school year. In addition, there is no formal system in place to provide interpreters to translate
                for parent, who require language assistance to access and participate in parent activities and parent groups
  ELE Criterion                          Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
     Number                                                             Document Submission
       and
      Topic
      ELE 8          Department of Education Findings:
Declining Entry to
                     As noted in the finding for ELE 4, the district has only begun to train staff in sheltered English immersion theory and technique and only
   a Program
                     provides classes in ESL at the high school. If parents of high school students decline to have their children participate in the ESL classes
                     they can alternately receive assistance through academic support classes and after-school homework help. At levels K-8, however, there
                     is no English language learner program consistent with the requirements of M.G.L. c.71A, other than pullout tutoring services provided by
                     staff that is not appropriately qualified. If parents decline the pullout model, there are no viable alternatives. Further, the district has no
                     mechanism in place to monitor the student’s progress.

                     Interviews with staff and a review of student records show that students are being placed in age appropriate classrooms, and taught the
                     same content as non-LEP students. However, the lack of sheltered English immersion classes and the level of English language
                     development instruction does not ensure these students are receiving effective content instruction.

                     Department of Education Findings:
                     Interviews and review of documentation indicated that if a parent declined entry to an English learner education program, the districts do
                     not have staff who are trained to ensure that the student’s English and academic needs are being met. If staff receive training in second
                     language acquisition and English language development, they would be able to use a variety of techniques to work with students.




                     Documentation review and interviews indicate that the district does not have a mechanism in place to support LEP students whose
                     parents have “opted-out” of the ELE Program.


      ELE 9          Department of Education Findings:
  Instructional
                     Documentation and interviews indicate that although some limited-English-proficient students receive effective content instruction it is not
    Grouping
                     presented at the appropriate instructional levels as required by part 2 of this criterion.




                     Based on interviews and student record reviews, the district has not developed an appropriate program consistent with the requirements
                     of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71A. Students are not provided with content instruction that is based on the English Language
                     Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.

                     Interviews, documentation and classroom observations indicate that due to the caseload assigned to ELE teachers and the growing
                     number of LEP students entering the district, students of different levels of English proficiency are grouped in instructional settings.


                     LEP students, who have not opted out or are not on an approved waiver, are not all educated in sheltered English instruction (SEI)
                     classrooms, and thus, are not able to access instruction that is based on the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks.
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                           Document Submission
    and
   Topic

                Interviews and documentation show that students are placed in their age appropriate grade placement upon enrollment and are receiving
                small amounts of pull-out language acquisition support. However, the district does not provide an appropriate program for English
                Language Learners consistent with the requirements of Chapter 71A.

                The district states that it follows a SEI model, but the documentation submitted does not indicate that appropriate SEI is provided.


                Documentation and interviews indicate that the district has based its curriculum on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the
                English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes. However, interviews also indicate that students of differing ages, are not
                always grouped according to similar levels of English language proficiency, but rather with mixed proficiency levels.

                Department of Education Findings:
                The districts have not identified the limited English proficient students in the districts; therefore, there are no instructional groups at this
                time. In addition, the districts do not have a plan to ensure that course content for limited English proficient students is based on the
                Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.
 ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
   Number                                                            Document Submission
      and
    Topic
    ELE 10        Department of Education Findings:
   Parental
                  Documentation and student records indicate that the parent notification letter as currently designed does not include the information
  Notification
                  required in part 1 a-c nor the explanation of parents’ right to apply for a waiver required in part 1g. As cited earlier, the district does not
                  typically provide parents and guardians of LEP students with report cards and progress reports in a language that is understandable to
                  them. Additionally, the current grade-reporting format for level k-8 does not provide information that addresses growth in English
                  proficiency.

                  The notices that were sent to parents were only in English, and not in a language understandable to the parents in all cases. Parents of
                  LEP students continuing in the ELE program for a second year are not sent parent notification letters. Report cards and progress reports
                  are not translated.

                  Department of Education Findings: Record review and documentation at the district and the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School
                  indicate that the required notice does not meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the notices do not indicate (a) the reason for
                  identification of the student as LEP; (b) the child’s level of English proficiency; (f) specific exit requirements; and (g) the parents’ right to
                  apply for a waiver or to decline to enroll their child in the program. In addition, notices were not always found in student records, and
                  notices are only being sent the first year a student is identified as ELE, and not in subsequent years.

                  Although the MMEHMCS does not currently have any ELE students, it included in its MOA documentation a sample parent notification
                  letter to parents; this letter does not clearly articulate all requirements of law.
                  Department of Education Findings:
                  Review of documentation indicated that the parental notification form used by the districts should include additional information, as
                  required by this criterion. The notice should clearly state the student’s level of English proficiency, as well as inform parents about the right
                  to decline enrollment into the program.
                  The parental notification letter does not contain the above required elements: the ways in which the program will meet the student’s
                  educational needs and strengths, and the specific exit criteria for the program in which the student is placed.
                  Report cards and progress reports are not always documented in the student record and are not always translated in the primary
                  language of the home, when necessary and appropriate.
                  Documentation review and interviews indicate that upon placement in the program, the district does send home parent notification letters,
                  which notify parents that their child will be assessed for English proficiency based on the results of the home language survey. On those
                  letters, parents are asked to sign for ESL or to decline services, which is inappropriate, since the student will not have been identified as
                  requiring services. These letters do not include: (1) the student has been identified as limited English proficient, (2) the reasons for
                  placement in the program, and (3) do not notify parents of their right to apply for a waiver. Translated letters are not noted in many of the
                  student’s files.

                  The review of documentation and student records indicates that a written notice exists but is not always in languages other than Spanish
                  for parents. In addition, there was no indication whether the parents required report cards and progress reports translated into a language
                  understandable to the parent/guardian. Refer to the finding under MOA 7 regarding the provision of translation assistance to
                  parents/guardians in the primary language of the home.


    ELE 11        See SE 9 and MOA 2 and 3 regarding the referral of ELE students for special education at the district and at the Barnstable Horace Mann
Equal Access to   Charter School.
  Academic
ELE Criterion                      Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
   Number                                                         Document Submission
     and
    Topic
Programs and    While the district provides access to the full range of academic opportunities, a review of records and interviews indicate that the district
  Services      does not ensure that LEP students have the opportunity to receive academic support services, such as guidance and counseling, in the
                student’s primary language.
                At the high school, students are taught content subjects by teachers who have ESL certification, but do not have content area certification.
                In addition, the students in these classes do not always receive the same instruction as their non-ELE peers.

                Record reviews and interviews indicate that LEP students do not consistently have equal access to academic programs and services.
                Specifically, the Department recommends the district ensures that staff members, knowledgeable about second language acquisition, are
                involved in the special education ineligibility, eligibility, and IEP development processes.

                The district indicates that it includes LEP students in the mainstream of regular education, when possible. LEP students do not have
                access to guidance and academic counseling in their native language.
                Department of Education Findings:
                While staff have indicated that there may be limited English proficient students in the district who have not been formally assessed and
                identified, it is unclear whether these students would have access to guidance and counseling in their primary language, as interviews
                indicated that counseling in their native language is currently not available. In addition, knowledge of the Massachusetts English Language
                Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes is limited


                Documentation and interviews indicate that because of the need for ELE staff to travel between multiple school buildings and the nature of
                the block scheduling at the middle school, students are removed from core academic classes such math, science, and social studies for
                ELD instruction and/or additional language support from the reading specialist. Accordingly, students receive only partial access to the
                general education curriculum. In addition, documentation, interviews and student records indicate that LEP students at the middle school
                receive grades of pass/fail and “audit.” However, the use of these grades is inconsistent, as their assignment is not based the application
                of uniform grading criteria, but is left to the discretion of general education teachers.

                Interviews with staff and a review of student records indicated that in most schools (with the exception of Memorial Elementary School),
                LEP students are not being considered for special education services until they are proficient in English. LEP students are not being
                provided academic counseling in their native language (except for students who speak Portuguese at Woodland Elementary). Interviews
                also showed that LEP students do not have access to advanced classes at Milford High School, although they do have access to technical
                classes. At the high school, an unqualified teacher teaches LEP students. Parents reported, and reviews of student records showed, that
                some children have repeated grades due to their lack of English proficiency.
                Interviews and observations demonstrate that LEP students are placed in general education classes with their English-speaking peers.
                However, general education teachers have not been provided with the necessary training to be able to “shelter content” and therefore
                there is limited access to the curriculum for LEP students. The district does not provide LEP students with support in non-core academic
                courses and students do not have opportunities to receive guidance and counseling in their primary language. There was no evidence
                that the limited English language development instruction students receive is based on the Massachusetts English Language Proficiency
                Benchmarks and Outcomes.



                Documentation and interviews indicate that, though the district does not segregate LEP students and follows civil rights guidelines, the
                district does not have a formal policy in place to assure equal access to academic programs and services..

                Refer to findings under MOA 13, CTE 5, CTE 7, CTE 14 and ELE 5 regarding equal access for students with limited English proficiency to
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                           Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                career/vocational technical information and for the parents/guardians and students to receive counseling and postsecondary information in
                a language they can understand at the vocational school. Further, LEP students are not always provided with sheltered English instruction
                in elective and nonacademic classes at the high school or at the vocational school.
                The District Curriculum Accommodation Plan does not include specific supports for limited English proficient students other than using
                tutors, which is not an appropriate method of providing English language instruction.

                Interviews and record review identified students who are not fully proficient in the four modalities of English, but who are not receiving
                English language development instruction. By not providing English language development instruction, these students cannot be taught to
                the same academic standards and curriculum as other students, or be provided the same opportunities to master such standards as other
                students, including the opportunity to enter academically advanced classes, receive credit for work done, and have access to the full
                range of programs. Additionally, these students do not have the opportunity to receive academic support services, such as guidance and
                counseling, in the student’s primary language.
                Record review and interviews indicate that, while the district does educate LEP student with their peers, the lack of SEI classes and
                English language instruction precludes English learners from fully being able to master the standards and frameworks as other students.
                ELE students are not provided English language instruction that is based on the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and
                Outcomes, taught by qualified teachers. The district does not provide academic counseling in the student’s native language. LEP
                students who are considered for Special Education are only tested in their native language if they speak Spanish.

                Interviews with staff and parents indicate that all educational programs and services are available to students with limited English
                proficiency. However, at the middle school, students are being pulled out of an elective for English language development instruction. At
                the high school, English language development instruction is given before the school day begins, during an optional period, and not during
                the regular school day. Students at the high school are not receiving academic credit for work done in English language development
                classes.

                According to document review, the district has not yet developed a means by which to ensure that LEP students have the opportunity to
                receive counseling, in the student’s primary language. Additionally, according to student records and document review, LEP students’
                English language development instruction is not based on standards contained in the Massachusetts English Language Proficiency
                Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO).
                All identified LEP students are integrated into all the district’s academic programs. Interviews indicate that the district does not have a
                mechanism in place to provide students with academic support services, such as guidance and counseling in the student’s primary
                language, when necessary and appropriate. (Refer to finding under ELE 5 regarding the curriculum and English language development
                instruction for LEP students as delineated in #6.)
  ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
    Number                                                            Document Submission
       and
      Topic
     ELE 12        There is a lack of evidence regarding how information is made available to limited English proficient students at the middle and high
 Equal Access to   school level, in a language that they can understand, to ensure equal access to the nonacademic programs and extracurricular activities.
Nonacademic and
 Extracurricular   Interviews indicate that some LEP students do not participate in extra-curricular activities because they are not notified of offerings in a
   Programs        language that they can understand.

                   Student record, district documentation and interviews indicate that the district does not restrict access in any way. However, there are no
                   translated flyers or announcements to alert students and their families to what non-academic and extra-curricular activities are available
                   throughout the district.

                   While LEP students could participate in all district extracurricular activities, based on documentation none of the activity notices, such as
                   try-out dates or meeting dates, are being translated.

                   Documentation and interviews indicate that though the district states that it provides appropriate support, where necessary to LEP
                   students, no documentation was supplied in support of this criterion
    ELE 13         According to district documentation, after an LEP student is re-designated, the ELE teacher follows the student’s progress for two years.
   Follow-up       However, this follow up monitoring was not documented in student records in either the district or the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter
                   School.
    Support
                   The Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School does not have any formerly limited English proficient (FLEP) students.
                   Interviews and the student record review showed that there is no formal policy or procedures in place system-wide to track and monitor
                   the provision of follow-up services to FLEP students. Interviews indicate that transition exit meetings are typically conducted when a
                   limited English proficient student is exiting from an ELE program, but recommendations for follow-up support services and which
                   personnel are responsible for the follow-up monitoring are not clearly documented.

                   Documentation indicates that the district has a monitoring form; however, not all student records reviewed had a completed monitoring
                   form.

                   A review of district documentation, student records, and interviews with staff indicate that although former limited English proficient
                   students are monitored for two years, it is done informally. Staff reported that student monitoring is generally initiated by the classroom
                   teacher, but only if there is a problem. The informal nature of the process does not ensure that issues are detected before a problem
                   arises.

                   Department of Education Findings:
                   While documentation indicated that students will be monitored for two years and provided with language support, staff have not received
                   training in providing language suppor


                   The review of documentation and the student records indicates that there are forms to document the monitoring of students who have
                   been re-designated as FLEP. However, there are no formal procedures and designated personnel in place to ensure consistent
                   implementation of the monitoring and provision of appropriate supports to FLEP students, when necessary. In addition, the monitoring
                   forms did not always fully document the student’s progress within the general education program.
     ELE 14        Staff providing ESL instruction at the district (Hyannis West Elementary School, Centerville Elementary, Cotuit Elementary, Marston Mills
 Licensure and     Elementary, and Osterville Bay Elementary) and at the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School do not hold appropriate certification.
    Fluency        Teachers with ELE students have not all been trained in Sheltered English Instruction, either at the district or at the Barnstable Horace
ELE Criterion                       Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                           Document Submission
    and
   Topic
Requirements    Mann Charter School, although the district has made some efforts to secure this training. At the high school, ELE certified teachers are
                also teaching content to students; however, these teachers do not hold appropriate content certification.

                Documentation indicates that the ESL teacher is licensed in ESL from grades 5-12. The district lists students in grades 1 and 2. No
                documents were submitted for any teachers with qualification to provide SEI instruction.

                While Milford has many talented and dedicated staff members in their ELE program, not all teachers are appropriately licensed or trained
                to teach in sheltered English instruction (SEI) classrooms. Some English language instruction teachers lack the appropriate licenses
                and/or English fluency. General education teachers instructing in sheltered English instruction classrooms reported that they have not yet
                received training.
                The Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School does not currently have ELE students.

                According to document review, the school provides some training in differentiated instruction and teaching the needs of diverse learners,
                but this training does not advance the skills and competencies required by the Department of Education for teachers to be able to provide
                SEI to ELE students. Further, the school does not employed appropriately qualified staff to provide English language instruction to ELE
                students.

                Documentation review and interviews indicate that teachers in ELE classrooms are fluent in English, but do not have the qualifications
                necessary to teach in an SEI classroom. Currently, English language instruction is taught by uncertified staff.

                A review of the documentation and interviews with staff show that two of the four English as a Second Language teachers are not
                appropriately certified. Although most of the district’s content teachers were provided 1-1/2 hours of professional development around
                second language acquisition, most of the teachers in sheltered English immersion classrooms do not have the appropriate credentials or
                sufficient training to enable them to instruct English language learners.

                Documentation and staff interviews indicated that the district does not have an ESL teacher. Currently tutors are used to provide
                instruction in the English language.
   ELE 15       Professional development documents do not indicate an implementation date for providing teachers with high quality training necessary to
Professional    ensure the progress of LEP students currently enrolled in the school. See also ELE 5.
Development
Requirements    Interviews and documentation indicate that although the district has made substantial efforts to provide professional development in
                sheltered English instruction, not all general education teachers and elective teachers of LEP students have as of yet received adequate
                training.

                The district is implementing a professional development plan that addresses the need for further training in English language learning and
                teaching; proposes district training goals for the next two school years; and includes counselors, school psychologists and administrative
                staff. Although, as written, the plan provides a blueprint for training in categories 1, 2 and 3, it does not include opportunities for category
                4 training, required of all teachers who teacher ELA to LEP students at any grade level in sheltered English immersion classrooms.
                Documentation and staff interviews indicated that the district provided training in accommodations and modifications for ELL students.
                The district has not developed or implemented a professional development plan to provide staff with the four required topics listed in the
                criterion

                Documentation and interviews indicate that, although some staff members have been provided with training in MELA-O, the district does
                not have a professional development plan to train its teachers to provide instruction to LEP students.

                According to documentation and staff interviews, LSRHS’ staff members have not been trained to provide ELE students with sheltered
  ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
    Number                                                            Document Submission
      and
     Topic
                   English immersion instruction in the regular education classrooms.

                   Documentation indicates that the ESL teacher is qualified to train other teachers in MELA-O. Documentation and interviews indicate that
                   the district has not developed a professional development plan that provides teachers and administrators with high quality training in (1)
                   second language learning and teaching; (2) sheltering content instruction; (3) assessment of speaking and listening; and (4) teaching
                   reading and writing to limited English proficient students. Further, the school has not provided training opportunities to teachers of LEP
                   students that ensure the progress of LEP students in developing oral comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing of English, and in
                   meeting academic standards.

                   Not all teachers providing content instruction to LEP students have received training in SEI.

                   The review of documentation and interviews indicate that there is not a professional development plan in place to provide the required
                   training to teaching personnel. The district is planning to initiate the required professional development for the 2006-07 school year.
                   Interviews also indicate there is confusion among the teaching staff regarding the difference between English Language Learner
                   Education requirements and the professional development that the district offered regarding multiculturalism.
     ELE 16        Interviews at the Barnstable Public Schools and the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School indicate that there is a lack of appropriate
   Equitable       textbooks for ELE students. The ELE classroom at the Hyannis East school is in a portable classroom. This is not comparable to
   Facilities -    classrooms provided to non-ELE students. The ELE classroom at the middle school is not comparable in all respects to the average
(To be reviewed    facilities provided to the overall student population.
during next CPR    Interviews indicate that there is a shortage of materials and books available for students and teachers in English language support
      visit)       programs.

                   Interviews with staff and observations indicate that students receiving English language development instruction do not have space or
                   materials comparable to the general student population. ESL teachers lack instructional materials. English language development
                   instruction is provided in the hallway at one school, and in the copy room at another school.

                   While LEP students are provided with comparable facilities, observations, documentation and interviews indicate that there is a lack of
                   materials and resources available to teachers and LEP students.

                   Observations and interviews indicated that at the Stacy Middle School, the enrollment of LEP students exceeds the capacity of the
                   assigned classroom, forcing the teacher to use the classrooms of other teachers during their prep periods. At Brookside Elementary,
                   English language instruction takes place in the art room, and there are insufficient instructional materials.

                   One of the spaces designated for the ELL program at the Andrews Middle School is small. In addition, students are assigned to one
                   classroom space for the entire day. There is an initiative to review the schedule at the middle school level to afford more time for the
                   integration of the LEP students into the exploratory classes with their regular education peers.
                   Observations indicate that there is no dedicated space in the Saugus Public Schools for the pull out tutoring that they are providing. The
                   tutor must transport materials from school to school and provides services in whatever space is available, most often in hallways and
                   unused storage spaces.


                                      The Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School does not currently have any ELE students
     ELE 17        See ELE 8 concerning erroneous SIMS submissions.
   DOE Data        Documentation indicates that district will use English language proficiency data, but the district did not provide the results of any periodic
  Submission       evaluations.
Requirements and
 ELE Criterion                        Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
   Number                                                            Document Submission
     and
    Topic
   Program         Documentation and interviews indicate that the district evaluates the effectiveness of its ELE program and makes appropriate adjustments
  Evaluation       to respond to the needs of its student population. For example, the district’s most recent program evaluation resulted in the use of a new
                   assessment tool for identification of LEP students; increased meeting and shared planning time between general education and ESL
                   teachers; improved progress report procedures and the adoption of new curricular materials. For the 2005-2006 school year, the district
                   has developed a more comprehensive plan for evaluating its ELE program that includes assessment data from local and state
                   assessments; feedback from regular education teachers, ESL teachers, and parents; and discussion and analysis by the district’s
                   administrative team.

                   District documentation and interviews demonstrate that the district is not annually evaluating its ELE programming.

                   Documentation submitted by the district indicates that the ELE teacher monitors the effectiveness of the program through a review of
                   students’ testing data (MELA-O and MEPA scores), staff feedback, and required program elements. According to documentation, any
                   area needing improvement is identified for instructional changes in programming. The Barnstable Public Schools did submit a document
                   entitled “ELE Self-Evaluation FY 06,” however, this consisted of compliance with the ELE criteria in the Department’s program review
                   instrument. This criterion requires that the district look at whether ELE students are “showing English language development and the
                   ability to participate meaningfully in the educational program," and evaluations should then look at the effectiveness of programs, not
                   whether the district has a program in place or complies with any of the other requirements of the criteria. Accordingly, the self-evaluation
                   submitted by the district is not fully compliant with this criterion.

                   The Barnstable Horace Mann charter school did not submit a program evaluation.

                   The Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School does not currently have any ELE students.
                   Documentation and staff interviews indicated that the district conducted an evaluation prior to the Coordinated Program Review. The
                   district did not submit DOE data.

                   Department of Education Findings:
                   Documentation indicated that the districts report the SIMS data to the Department, but the districts do not have a method to evaluate the
                   effectiveness of its ELE programs, because the districts claim that they do not have any ELE students at this time. Once the programs are
                   developed, the district must develop procedures to evaluate the programs regularly to ensure that they remain effective

                   The review of student records, documentation and interviews indicate that the district has not conducted periodic evaluations of its ELE
                   program, including tracking the academic progress of the identified LEP students to assess the responsiveness of the educational
                   program to the individual student’s needs and the ability of the student to participate meaningfully in the general education curriculum.

ELE 18 Records     Student record review indicates that student records at the Barnstable Horace Mann Charter School and the Barnstable Public Schools do
of LEP Students-   not always contain all of the required documentation, including results of identification and proficiency tests and evaluations (MELA-O,
(To be reviewed    MEPA, MCAS, or other tests chosen by the Board of Education and the district); copies of parent notification letters; progress reports and
during next CPR    report cards (in the native language, if necessary); evidence of follow-up monitoring (if applicable); and documentation of a parent’s
     visit.)       consent to “opt-out” of ELE.
                   Student records indicated that not all required elements were found in student records reviewed. Specifically the following information
                   was lacking in some or all of the student records: the results of MEPA and MCAS; information about the student’s prior schooling; copies
                   of progress reports and report cards; documentation of a parent’s consent to opt out; and Individual Student Success Plans for students
                   who failed MCAS.

                   A review of records, documents and interviews indicate that the district has not developed and maintained records for LEP students that
ELE Criterion                           Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
  Number                                                               Document Submission
    and
   Topic
                    meet the requirements for this criterion. Records consistently lacked initial identification assessments, information regarding prior
                    education, annual parent notifications, report cards, monitoring activities, and opt out consent forms. Student records primarily contained
                    random samples of student work.

                    Based on student record review, the student records for LEP students were inconsistent in content. Seven of 28 files contained the
                    document that asked parents their home language and less than half the files had documentation that the student’s English language
                    proficiency was assessed. None of the student records had a log of access and identification and proficiency test results were sporadic.
                    Some files did contain report cards, however none of the student records had ELE progress reports and none of the materials were
                    translated into the primary language of the parents.

                    Documentation review indicates that the district did not maintain logs of access on the student records of LEP students. Student records
                    do not contain home language surveys; results of MCAS; information about students’ previous school experiences; copies of progress
                    reports or report cards (translated into the home languages); or evidence of follow-up monitoring.

                    The review of student records indicates that there is inconsistent documentation and translation of the home language surveys, parent
                    notification letters and progress reports.

Information to be translated into languages other than English
When students have parents or guardians with limited English language skills, general announcements and notices of extracurricular activities and other opportunities are distributed
to them in the primary language of the home. When persons with limited English language skills reside in the community, school and program recruitment and promotional materials
are disseminated to them in their primary language(s).

								
To top